Tracking device law proposed for viol...

Tracking device law proposed for violators of restraining order...

There are 24 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Apr 2, 2008, titled Tracking device law proposed for violators of restraining order.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

Anyone who violates an order of protection could be forced to wear a satellite tracking device that would issue an electronic warning if the offender gets too close to the victim, under legislation introduced ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
tax payer

Lady Lake, FL

#1 Apr 2, 2008
How much is this going to cost the taxpayers? It is not going to stop someone who is determined to kill their victim. Put them in jail and or make them wear electronic bracelets. All which also costs the taxpayers so big fines should be incurred.
Real Smart

Wilmette, IL

#3 Apr 2, 2008
Bonnie wrote:
What a joke. Last time I looked it is still a free country here. Any woman that is being stalked or harassed & allows it to continue makes me wonder about their mental state. There are classes in many fields teaching self-defense methods. I have yet to see a piece of paper that would stop a bullet.
You need to express your views at a shelter for abused women and children.
Vinron

Metamora, IL

#4 Apr 2, 2008
I think this is a great idea -- and make the offenders pay for it.

Hasn't this state cut back on probation services generally in the last few years? How can we monitor OPs in addition to all of the duties the probation officer already has?

Bonnie, when some person decides to stalk and harass you, how are you supposed to stop it? Why don't you just come out and say you think the harassment is the victim's fault. Do you support concealed carry in Illinois then? Let the victims arm themselves???
Caput Rukahs

Monee, IL

#5 Apr 2, 2008
Real Smart wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to express your views at a shelter for abused women and children.
Sorry, I agree with Bonnie. If someone is determined to harm another person what is a tracking device going to do? As the story stated it will only alert authorities if the pass the safe zones of work and home, what about areas outside these zones?
RegularGuy

Melrose Park, IL

#6 Apr 2, 2008
This is just another knee-jerk reaction to what is a fairly rare crime. When someone is killed by this kind of violence, it goes straight to our hearts, but our response should still come from our heads.

Few people realize how easy it is to get an Order of Protection in IL. Any one the Tribune's readers could have one against them right now, and maybe not even know it. That's because protection orders are issued 'ex parte'- without any knowledge on the part of the subject of the order.

Protection Orders are frequently used by women in divorce cases. It's a virtual 'neutron bomb' designed to get their soon-to-be ex-husband out of the house, probably for good.

In any other criminal charge, there has to be some proof, some evidence of wrongdoing. When an OP is issued, it's only on the basis of ALLEGATIONS, rather than a finding by a court. OPs carry a presumption of guilt when we are (supposedly) guaranteed a presumption of innocence.

The system may need reforming, but this is not a good first step.
RegularGuy

Melrose Park, IL

#7 Apr 2, 2008
Caput Rukahs wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I agree with Bonnie. If someone is determined to harm another person what is a tracking device going to do? As the story stated it will only alert authorities if the pass the safe zones of work and home, what about areas outside these zones?
I don't suppose you've heard about the 'setup' for OP violations.

The person with the OP, usually a woman, knows that the subject of the OP is going to be somewhere at a particular time (fathers attending kids' sporting events is a great example), so she shows up there, too, then claims a violation of the 'safe zone' order. Police make an arrest, and suddenly Dad has gone from being his kid's cheerleader to being a felon.

I have no reason to believe that GPS tracking wouldn't simply make that 'setup' easier to accomplish.
Masada

AOL

#8 Apr 2, 2008
George Orwell would be proud.
Caput Rukahs

Monee, IL

#9 Apr 2, 2008
RegularGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you've heard about the 'setup' for OP violations.
The person with the OP, usually a woman, knows that the subject of the OP is going to be somewhere at a particular time (fathers attending kids' sporting events is a great example), so she shows up there, too, then claims a violation of the 'safe zone' order. Police make an arrest, and suddenly Dad has gone from being his kid's cheerleader to being a felon.
I have no reason to believe that GPS tracking wouldn't simply make that 'setup' easier to accomplish.
Good point, didn't think of that angle, but you would be correct, much easier.
Johnny Ray

Buffalo Grove, IL

#11 Apr 2, 2008
Maybe they could fit the bad guys with one of those exploding collars like the ones they had in that Rutger Hauer prison movie. If the bad guy comes within 100 feet of the protected person, the collar starts beeping and if they come closer the collar blows up!
Problem solved!
Stone Thrower

Chelsea, MA

#12 Apr 2, 2008
Bonnie wrote:
What a joke. Last time I looked it is still a free country here. Any woman that is being stalked or harassed & allows it to continue makes me wonder about their mental state. There are classes in many fields teaching self-defense methods. I have yet to see a piece of paper that would stop a bullet.
Are you kidding? "Allows it"?? Do you anything about domestic violence? The stalker is not the victim here. The person making threats is not the victim here. This is not about restraining people in an ugly divorce, it is about protecting the person being victimized.

Cindy Bischof did EVERYTHING she could within the law. Even if she had a gun she probably wouldn't have been able to protect herself because he shot her as she was leaving work - without warning, he just shot her. I think the tracking device is a fantastic idea for those who break the order of protection and will not get counseling. Its not like they will slap it on just anyone, it is a measure of last resort. I would pay for that level of protection for someone in need (and I do pay Illinois taxes). If it saves one life, I am all for it.
Stone Thrower

Chelsea, MA

#13 Apr 2, 2008
RegularGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you've heard about the 'setup' for OP violations....I have no reason to believe that GPS tracking wouldn't simply make that 'setup' easier to accomplish.
If you reread the article, this is proposed for people who refuse counseling and are a documented threat. If a father has joint custody of the children, that is not the same as a person who cannot see their kids because he is a threat to them. From the article, "Women were being advised to leave their jobs, their children's schools and their support networks" because the restraining order is not protecting them. That is the situation where the tracking device would be used. BIG difference between domestic violence and a messy divorce. I believe that men get screwed in divorces, but to not want to protect those who experience DV and actually fear for their lives because of a bad divorce experience is just sick.
Read before you write

Westville, IL

#14 Apr 2, 2008
RegularGuy wrote:
This is just another knee-jerk reaction to what is a fairly rare crime. When someone is killed by this kind of violence, it goes straight to our hearts, but our response should still come from our heads.
Few people realize how easy it is to get an Order of Protection in IL. Any one the Tribune's readers could have one against them right now, and maybe not even know it. That's because protection orders are issued 'ex parte'- without any knowledge on the part of the subject of the order.
Protection Orders are frequently used by women in divorce cases. It's a virtual 'neutron bomb' designed to get their soon-to-be ex-husband out of the house, probably for good.
In any other criminal charge, there has to be some proof, some evidence of wrongdoing. When an OP is issued, it's only on the basis of ALLEGATIONS, rather than a finding by a court. OPs carry a presumption of guilt when we are (supposedly) guaranteed a presumption of innocence.
The system may need reforming, but this is not a good first step.
You are seriously misinformed. First, an Order of Protection hearing is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. Obtaining an OP requires both a verified petition and sworn testimony. It's not the biggest hurdle to get one, but they regularly get denied because the petitioner cannot meet the burden of proof to establish that abuse has occurred.

Second, only an Emergency Order of Protection can be issued ex parte. Very specific criteria have to be met for an emergency OP to be granted and the available remedies are limited. Emergency Orders of Protection are, by statute, limited to a duration of 14-21 days. A long-term or "plenary" Order of Protection has strict notice requirements and is valid for no more than 2 years.

Your claim that they are used to get men out of houses in divorce proceedings is based in ignorance. Does it happen? Sure. Do men do it just as frequently? Yep. In fact, I have observed a bigger problem with abusers (usually, but not always, men) using OPs to get custody of children when their victims try to leave. &#65279;Unfortunately, all legal remedies are subject to abuse and don't always work perfectly. Nonetheless, the remedies exist for a reason, and to miscategorize the entire OP process because of the minority of people that abuse it or are abused by it is a disservice to those victims of abuse who need real, accurate information about the tools available to them to escape the abuse.

You'd be doing yourself a favor by actually reading the Illinois Domestic Violence Act before you comment on it. The full text of the Act can be found here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.as...
Fleece

Lake Zurich, IL

#15 Apr 2, 2008
Another means for government contractors to get their products use legislated to generate a profit.

Remember BAIID devices installed on vehicles.

Another political profiteer uses clout with a legislator to get his invention sold through a bad law.
Jack

Los Angeles, CA

#16 Apr 2, 2008
"This is just another knee-jerk reaction to what is a fairly rare crime. When someone is killed by this kind of violence, it goes straight to our hearts, but our response should still come from our heads.
Few people realize how easy it is to get an Order of Protection in IL. Any one the Tribune's readers could have one against them right now, and maybe not even know it. That's because protection orders are issued 'ex parte'- without any knowledge on the part of the subject of the order.
Protection Orders are frequently used by women in divorce cases. It's a virtual 'neutron bomb' designed to get their soon-to-be ex-husband out of the house, probably for good."

Unfortunately, it is often too easy for a party to go into court to obtain an Emergency Order of Protection and use it against the alleged offender to obtain exclusive possession of the house and sole custody of their children. It is even more unfortunate when that person realizes that the order may not be extended so they make false allegations against the alleged offender and has that person serve time in jail as a "violator." After the alleged offender is released, jobs are lost, mortgages go unpaid and then the alleged victim wants to take their false allegations back but it is too late.
An ex parte order is only good for 21 days and the alleged offender has to be served with summons - so you may have an order against you but you will find out within 21 days or it will most likely be denied at hearing.
However, in true domestic violence cases, there needs to be protection that is easy to obtain. Unfortunately, the law does not protect alleged violators from a liar.
former victim

University Park, IL

#17 Apr 2, 2008
My ex was abusive to myself and children. Staying in my home and job protected me. I had a O.P. and was advised by police to moveand change job/school. But my neighbors knew him, when he would violate my neighbors would call police. Security at my job had copies of the O.P. and his picture. I was lucky to have such support. A GPS would be useful and give some protection, a gun would be better, but it comes with too many issues.
Cynical

Chicago, IL

#18 Apr 2, 2008
RegularGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't suppose you've heard about the 'setup' for OP violations.
The person with the OP, usually a woman, knows that the subject of the OP is going to be somewhere at a particular time (fathers attending kids' sporting events is a great example), so she shows up there, too, then claims a violation of the 'safe zone' order. Police make an arrest, and suddenly Dad has gone from being his kid's cheerleader to being a felon.
I have no reason to believe that GPS tracking wouldn't simply make that 'setup' easier to accomplish.
How does this "set up" work if the SAFE ZONES ARE HOME & WORK...is the sporting event at the wife's home or office?
Chuck

United States

#19 Apr 2, 2008
What an infringement of civil liberties. All to often; as was the case with me; people have and continue to use Temporary Restraining Orders (Orders of Protection) to get an upper hand in the beggining of a divorce. It is abused so much that it appears most civil judges do not give it to much weight or concern. Most court houses have staff who's primary job is to help "victims" fill out such paperwork. It is approved instantly by a judge with no testimony or evidence to support any allegations filed by the petioner. Who decides when a person is a candidate for such a device. The Temporary Restaining Order placed against me was dropped the day of the hearing because it had no merit. However it was in effect for 21 days until the hearing date. Should my activities have been stalked by local government just because I was an unlucky guy going through the initial death throws of a divorce. I think not as far as personal dignity is concerned. In recent times a mentally disturbed man shot and killed many students at Virginia Tech. With this logic proposed by the state all people treated for mental illness should have to wear "trackers" just in case an individual that has the same mental problems can be stopped before replicating the same violent tendencies. Once a program like this is started there will be no liine left in the sand for the basic constitutional right to personal freedom.
Ani Johnson

Ripon, WI

#20 Apr 2, 2008
"The bill introduced Tuesday would require those fitted with GPS devices to pay their cost, estimated by several in the GPS tracking industry at $10 to $25 a day per person."

Pretty costly. And how effective is it unless BOTH parties are "fitted with GPS devices"? I can see how having your GPS sound an alarm would warn you of potential danger.

The whole idea seems unfeasible. There is no way to prevent a murderer for accomplishing his/her goal other than imprisonment or extermination.
RegularGuy

Melrose Park, IL

#21 Apr 2, 2008
Cynical wrote:
<quoted text>
How does this "set up" work if the SAFE ZONES ARE HOME & WORK...is the sporting event at the wife's home or office?
Many (not all, but many) OPs include restrictions like not coming within 100 feet of the protected person.

This isn't a fantasy scenario, I've seen it happen at a high school basketball game when Dad got blindsided by an OP that he didn't even know had been obtained.
ejbrown

Homer Glen, IL

#22 Apr 2, 2008
It is about time something was done about violators of Orders of Protection. This should save many lives. I would like to see the judge have the discretion to order the tracking device upon first issuing the order depending on the severity of the case.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Justice Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 2 men charged with beating teen who egged Orlan... (Nov '08) 4 hr Posie 145
News Girl abducted, assaulted in Palos Heights (Sep '08) 4 hr wrong phpd 195
News I'm mad -- I got Berwyn's $100 camera traffic t... (Feb '12) 12 hr Crazy 40
lyons, il politics (Mar '07) 13 hr Make America Grea... 9,090
Michael Seno (Oct '15) 17 hr wow 16
Did McAuliffe get his teeth fixed on village time? 19 hr I G will know soon 26
Poll You favorite Anti-Union-No Permit Official (Sep '15) Fri Guess Who 13

Justice Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Justice Mortgages